Skip to main content

tv   Beyond 100 Days  BBC News  November 20, 2019 7:00pm-8:01pm GMT

7:00 pm
you're watching beyond one hundred day. the us ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland, confirms there was a quid pro quo with ukraine and it was initiated by the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. the diplomat said there was no backchannel diplomacy — "everyone was in the loop" — including the secretary of state mike pompeo and vice—president mike pence. ambassador sondland said the link between military aid for ukraine and investigations into the bidens was clear — even if he didn't get it directly from the president. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously, with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting — the answer is yes. but donald trump comes out swinging — claiming he barely
7:01 pm
knew the ambassador. i don't know him very well. i have not spoken to him much. he is not a man i know well. seems like a nice guy, though. in other major news this evening: an annoucement from buckingham palace in the last hour that prince andrew is stepping back from public duties for the forseeable future. it follows an explosive interview with the bbc — in which he was widely criticised for his lack of remorse over his friendship with the convicted sex offender, jeffrey epstein. hello, and welcome. i am christian fraser in london, michelle fleury is in washington. two major stories tonight. we are going to turn shortly to the testimony we have been hearing on capitol hill through the day. but we are going to start with the announcement in the last hour that the duke of york, prince andrew, is stepping back from his royal duties for the foreseeable future. in a statement from buckingham palace, prince andrew he said he deeply sympathised with epsteins victims
7:02 pm
and "everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure". the prince accepted that his links with the convicted sex offender had become a "major disruption" to the royal family. let's speak to our royal correspondent, sarah campbell. he did this interview to put a lid on it, but clearly, yet had snowboard with repercussions for the family. one must presume that the queens private office has got involved? yes, you would have to think so. it really has become such a problem for the royal family. the interviewer was supposed to rot a line under the whole jeffrey epstein issue, all the rumours swirling around prince andrew in connection with jeffrey epstein. it around prince andrew in connection withjeffrey epstein. it is the complete opposite, it opened a whole can of worms had all sorts of questions around that relationship. clearly, at the top of the british royal family, they felt they had to do something to try and take control
7:03 pm
of this situation, which has become increasingly difficult because the numberof increasingly difficult because the number of charities think that they would consider their positions in terms of the prince. money was being withdrawn from projects he was working on, it was untenable. the statement is a really inevitable. what is interesting is that the town is very different from the interview he gave at the weekend, where he was quite combative and quite defensive at times, he seemed quite unsympathetic. this is different. it seems to have addressed all the issues that he has been criticised for in that interview. that is empathy, sympathy, they were to sympathy is used in a statement, it is completely different in tone. somebody has taken charge and made some changes here. how does his work in practice? of course, he is the patron of area societies and organisations. what does for the foreseeable future is mean? that is the unknowing at the moment. what he has said is that he has stepped back from public life for the foreseeable
7:04 pm
future, he has not step down from the patron energies and charity connections that he has, they will still exist. it will be up to them whether they want to continue situation, lots of charities want a royal patron because it brings in a lot of money, contacts, connections, networking. that is not the case of the duke of york at the moment, you wouldn't want to touch in terms of your organisation. each organisation will have to review how they believe their relationship should continue. this statement is very different in content, it is contrite, really. in the statement, specific reference to law enforcement agencies, presumably, the fbi will be looking at that? that is going to be interesting to see what happens next, more are not in a second. i wa nted next, more are not in a second. i wanted to ask, presumably, prince andrei says he is stepping back from royal duties because she doesn't
7:05 pm
wa nt to royal duties because she doesn't want to distract from the work of the royal and the charities. what that for him personally? he will still have to answer questions about his relationship jeffrey epstein. yes. i cannot stress enough that the statement from the royal family is completely unprecedented. we cannot think of any time in modern history where a royal has stepped down because of a scandal, usually, there may be health issues and other things going on. but this kind of statement, the kind of town, the kind of rumours circulating, it has been really difficult for the british royal family to manage. they have had to take quite drastic action, that one of their senior members to step back from public life. in terms ofjeffrey epstein, it is really up to the fbi as to whether they want to hear more from prince andrew on that matter. for more on those legal questions prince andrew may face in the us, i'm now drawing by formerfederal
7:06 pm
prosecutor, joe moreno. at the end of his statement, he said he was willing to help any law enforcement agencies with their investigations if required. would he answer questions from the fbi? what kind of pressure today apply to him to come here and cooperate? it has an interesting question. the fbi will certainly be interested in hearing from him. he can certainly voluntarily participate in an interview, that is pretty simple. the fbi will go to the uk, sit down with him, read him his miranda rights, he will waive those rights as you can have a conversation with them. that is certainly one possibility. they want to compel an interview with him, that is very different to stop we do not compel testimony from people, we can extradite folks. if there is an arrest warrant issued by a federal judge, that is an option and you two comments can work about getting somebody extradited. at the time, evenif somebody extradited. at the time, even if they are, we do not compel an interview. if a person does not
7:07 pm
wa nt an interview. if a person does not want to speak to the fbi, they do not have to. the real reason you are here to talk to us today is this next story. it has been a blockbuster day in the impeachment inquiry. we've been hearing from the us ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland, who is, in so many ways, central to this entire investigation. mr sondland remember was a donor to the trump campaign, he is the only witness this week who had a direct line to the president and he was in regular contact with rudi giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. in a devastating opening statement, the ambassador confirmed that he had worked with mr giuliani at "the express direction of the president". everyone he said was in the loop — including the secretary of state mike pompeo and vice president mike pence. and by september, it had become clear to him there was a quid pro quo. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously, with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting — the answer is yes.
7:08 pm
the ambassador said he assumed over time that the freeze on military aid and a planned photo opportunity at the white house were being withheld in order to get the ukrainians to announce investigations into the 2016 election and joe biden. but — under cross examination by republicans — he stressed he had never had that explicit conversation with the president. president trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. the only thing we got directly from giuliani was that the burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the white house meeting. the aid was my own personal guess based, again, on your analogy two plus two equals four. they have just resumed on the hill and we will cross prosecutor, joe moreno
7:09 pm
who is still with us. what of the most striking things is not just this recognition what of the most striking things is notjust this recognition of quid pro quo, but also, why don't they net in terms of who knew what. let me play you another clip of ambassador sondland. even as late as september 24 of this year, secretary pompeo was directing kurt volker to speak with mr giuliani in a whatsapp message, kurt volker told me, speak with mr giuliani in a whatsapp message, kurt volkertold me, in part, spoke with rudy, her guidance from s. that is the state department official designation for the secretary. widening the circle of those in the now, how significant is that? or is it we should be focusing on the fact that he confirmed a pet pro quo? i think it's about. they we re pro quo? i think it's about. they were devastating was used, normally, lam not were devastating was used, normally, i am not one for hyperbole but i would agree with that word, it was a
7:10 pm
devastating day. today, ambassador sondland really did make that connection. he gave first hand testimony as to what she was being told by president trump, and what he was communicating to the ukrainians about the expectation of what they we re about the expectation of what they were delivered for at least a white house visit, secondly, perhaps for the military aid. very, very bad day for the white house. in terms of body we go from here, that is the next question. impeachment all but certain now? i can't imagine now, at this point, it doesn't go to impeachment. as far as defence of the president, saying there was no quicker clue is useless, i think we are past that. two possible defences, it was a quid pro quo but not corrupt. it was a legitimate inquiry into corruption, and that's 0k, inquiry into corruption, and that's ok, whether you believe it or not is a different question. the second one
7:11 pm
is, it was bad and inappropriate, but he does not rise to the level of impeachment, basically, the bill clinton defence. i think we will hear one or a combination of those two defences. basically, the republicans are boxing pretty badly. the people we have heard from in at the last two days have notjust for a win rudy giuliani under the bus, they have given over him and reversed again. today, sondland said, we didn't like that rudy giuliani was involved in this, but we dealt with behind that we had in front of us. ijust we dealt with behind that we had in front of us. i just wonder what this means for him because there are already prosecutor is looking into the background of rudy giuliani. the ambassador certainly did not carry any water for the white house or fort mary giuliani today in his testimony, he held nothing back. i have developed over the may and as well as the other individuals mentioned all had to be thinking about, notjust mentioned all had to be thinking about, not just now, mentioned all had to be thinking about, notjust now, what is the collective defence for the president, but what is their
7:12 pm
personal exposure closer? have they fio personal exposure closer? have they no about things, did they have an obligation to speak out, to resign? i think all of those questions must be high on that mind right now, and i'm sure they are all getting lawyers as we speak. thank you for bringing us up to speed. let's return to capitol hill and that hearing, we can listen into the ongoing testimony from ambassador sondland. i never testified that we we re sondland. i never testified that we were pushing anyone to investigate the bidens, i said burisma. you were involved in ukrainian policy?” the bidens, i said burisma. you were involved in ukrainian policy? i told you which my role was, which was quite limited and focus. what your understanding that ukraine policy should you involve investigations into americans or debunking conspiracy theories about the 26 election, sir? what i testified was that in order to get president is a
7:13 pm
line is the a white house visit, mr giuliani conveyed the notion that president trump wanted these announcements to happen. —— is a lensky. it was part of the presidents political agenda, it was done to benefit the president personally and politically. where are you following the president's orders, mr ambassador?” are you following the president's orders, mr ambassador? iwas following the president's directions to speak with mr giuliani. thank you, sir. i thank to speak with mr giuliani. thank you, sir. ithank the to speak with mr giuliani. thank you, sir. i thank the gentleman for shielding. i want to point out a couple of things, ambassador, in response to my colleagues. they seem to be under the impression that u nless to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, ambassador sondland, iam bribing the ukrainian president... that there is no evidence of bribery if you didn't say, and thus i am telling you i am not going to give the aid unless they do this. that
7:14 pm
there is no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid. and that's there, you have given us a lot of evidence of precisely like conditionality of both the white house meeting and the monetary assistance. you have told us that you e—mail to the secretary of state and said that if these investigations were announced, they knew just this investigations were announced, they knewjust this person was put in place, that the ukrainians would be prepared to give the president what he wants, and that would break the large and you shall do is to documents about this. in your written statement, the logjam you we re written statement, the logjam you were referring to includes the logjam on security assistance? correct. you have testified that you have seen, acting chief of staff mulvaney himself acknowledged that
7:15 pm
the military aid was withheld, in part, over the investigation into 2016 that you have talked about, correct? correct. . they also seem to say they got the money, it may have been on tradition but they got the money. yes, they got caught. they got caught. they still don't have the white house meeting, they made no statement, they got no meeting. the condition to get the meeting, they don't make the statement to get the meeting. but they got caught. you are aware, ambassador, that two days before the age was lifted, this inexplicable age was lifted, this inexplicable age was lifted, congress announced it was investigating this scheme, you are aware of that?” it was investigating this scheme, you are aware of that? i am now, yes. i would like to address
7:16 pm
something, you claim that you meatless morning, claiming that republicans deny russian attempts to influence our elections. that is false and you it. this committee, time and time again, we all agree that russia has tried to influence american elections, as far back as the soviet union. i wish you would quit making that comment. yesterday, we establish with mr volker something quite obvious— more than one country can try to influence our elections. we did not agree with your russian collusion narrative, your russian collusion narrative, your dnc clinton campaign coup attempt, members of the fbi and doj and foreign sources, something you have conveniently ignored as chairman of the intelligence committee as you became chairman of the impeachment committee. in this process today, i'm interested in facts, i'm not a prosecutor or a
7:17 pm
defence attorney. i'm not an attorney like mr turner. ambassador sondland, you honestly have used the words, presume, presumption, presuming, some form of the verb presume repeatedly today. today, you set up was the problem, no one ever told me of the aid was tied to anything. i was presuming it was. a mathematic fact, two plus two does equal afford. but in reality, too presumptions plus two presumptions does not equal even one fact. the fa ct does not equal even one fact. the fact is, the president did tell you, and sondland, no quid pro quo — that isa and sondland, no quid pro quo — that is a fact. another fact— now quid pro quo occurred. about 296 of the
7:18 pm
wreck at a washington post article the headlines that they were supple has a statutory right to an immunity, received a free pinocchio is. pinocchio is meeting... we all know what pinnacles mean. an interpretation of that is that they we re interpretation of that is that they were trying to put out the whistle—blower, an equally valid and incredible interpretation is that they are shut out hi, this unlevel playing field that has been created by the system is that there is a statutory right to an entry maintains that unlevel playing field and have the advantages it gives them. the chairman also announces at every hearing that he will not tolerate any witness intimidation, any offence, or any issues of trying to bully a witness. ambassador sondland, have you, yourfamily to bully a witness. ambassador sondland, have you, your family or your businesses received any threats, or reprisal is, or attempts to harm you in any way? many. can you give us an example? we have
7:19 pm
countless e— mails apparently you give us an example? we have countless e—mails apparently to my wife. our properties have been picketed and boycotted. let's explore that. our own colleague has in fact called for a boycott of your hotels in oregon. i'm assuming he believes that will harm you to the point that you will then be bullied into doing whatever he wants done? my into doing whatever he wants done? my colleagues and i usually would bully a bit over the top. nevertheless, he intended to harm you and your businesses, is that what you would surmise? that is my understanding. and his call for boycott give rise to demonstrations outside of your hotels, customers are to weave out of the demonstrators to get in and out of their hotels? as i understand, they are going on as i speak. others have said that the congress and is a
7:20 pm
home—grown business that support hundreds of local jobs and home—grown business that support hundreds of localjobs and our economy is shameful. another lady has said, we are saddened to have our congressmen call for a boycott that the livelihoods of livelihoods of thousands of his constituents in the attack on our employees as i felt like i couldn't agree more, the congressmen should not be using the vast influence that we as members of congress have to bother you and harm the thousands of employees that operate in your business by trying to ta ke operate in your business by trying to take business away from you. to force you into doing something that they wanted you to do, which i can testify you have actually done. that isa testify you have actually done. that is a shame for that. i am hopeful that my colleagues willjoin me in saying, congressmen, you really should not be trying to use your congressional efforts to try and bully and threaten a business before these proceedings, that isjust wrong. i look forward to his response. thank you, congressmen.”
7:21 pm
was so much humour and by your request at the congressmen not ability to get something done, all that we are talking about is the president willing to get something he wants done. having said that, i would like to clarify one point about the whistle— blower would like to clarify one point about the whistle—blower protection from the article that mr conwayjust provided. the law reads, expressly restricts the inspector general's office to disclosing whistle—blower puzzling identities. it says, quote, the inspector general shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the inspector general such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation, or the disclosure is made to an official of the department of justice responsible for determining whether the prosecution should be undertaken. that appears to be the lounge that you are a restriction on disclosing
7:22 pm
a whistle— blower's you are a restriction on disclosing a whistle—blower's identity, applicable only to the inspector general's office. we found no court ruling on whether whistle— blowers have a right to an amenity —— and amenity. it says it is best practised about the solution of the ukraine whistle— blower's practised about the solution of the ukraine whistle—blower's identity, given that the concerns about retaliation. we have stepped into bizarro land when a senior policy makers are trying to yank a cia employee into the public spotlight and with highly shamed for making it whistle—blowing and with highly shamed for making it whistle— blowing complaint, especially when they are credible threats to that employee's personal safety. i don't know why our colleagues on the other side of the isle... i'm afraid i only have three minutes and some other issues. the end of the article does go further
7:23 pm
and says there are three pinocchios. the president of the united states has five pinocchios on a daily basis, so let's not go there. applause. and thus in your deposition, your comment out that you were truly disappointed at the state department rented due, at the last minute, from testifying early on october eight 2019. your issuance of a subpoena has supported my appearance here today and i am pleased to provide the following testimony. so, it is clear that the white house, the state department, did not want you to testify at that deposition— is that correct? that is correct. since then, on numerous occasions, in your opening statement today, you have indicated that you have not been able to access documents in the state department, is that correct? correct. you have been hampered in
7:24 pm
your ability to provide testament to this committee, is that correct?” have been hampered in providing completely accurate testimony without the benefit of those documents. in terms of your conversations with the president of the us, what percentage of your conversations we re the us, what percentage of your conversations were about ukraine? as compare to your other duties?” conversations were about ukraine? as compare to your other duties? i do not recall. you have only had six or seven conversations with the president, you sage. about ukraine, isaid. i've president, you sage. about ukraine, i said. i've had many other conversations about completely unrelated matters. so, how many conversations? lasmo again, i don't wa nt conversations? lasmo again, i don't want to give an answer because it might be wrong without the records. probably in at the range of 20. would you say that military aid and a lack of a meeting in the white house works... wouldn't you say that
7:25 pm
the delay in military aid to ukraine and the reluctance to have a white house meeting has a benefit to russia? i think it could be looked at way, yes. i will speak briefly about cowin. when michael cohen was before the oversight committee, he was asked, you suggest the president sometimes vindicates his wishes indirectly. for example, you said, mrtrump did not indirectly. for example, you said, mr trump did not tell me directly to lie to congress, that is not how he operates. it would be different, he said, he doesn't give you questions, he doesn't give you orders, he speaks in code. i understand you code because i have been around him for a decade. so, code because i have been around him fora decade. so, do code because i have been around him for a decade. so, do you think the president was speaking in code when he was talking about wanting investigations? the amount on your
7:26 pm
screen as the us ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland, he has been given evidence to the impeachment inquiry, overfive hours of testimony so far. plenty of what he has said will be of concern to the white house. this is beyond 100 days from the bbc. let's return to that impeachment hearing on capitol hill. the press secretary, ambassador sondland's testimony today misrepresented secretary perry's interaction with giuliani. secretary perry spoke to rudy giuliani only once at the president's request. no one else was on that call, at no point, during or before the phone call, to do it by doing or burisma come up. i would ask that to be entered into the record. without
7:27 pm
objection, it should be noted they haveissues objection, it should be noted they have issues to come to testify under oath. we are certain see in the class of principles and ideas, eventually, i think they would like to see some compromise. i think suffering they expect above everything else, fundamentally, they expect that there is a sense of fairness about it. they want to read pa rt fairness about it. they want to read part of a text i receive from someone that i have tremendous respect for just a few hours someone that i have tremendous respect forjust a few hours ago. she wrote, crafting and a story to hurt another human being can ever be right. they went of the joint hunting and hurting an individual just does not justify hunting and hurting an individual just does notjustify the end, and politics does not give anyone a free pass to destroy other people. you can say a lot about the treatment of present over the dealer three years, but i think one thing you can argue with is it has been fair, there were those calling for his impeachment literally before he was inaugurated. for two and half years, we are told every single day that he has
7:28 pm
betrayed our country, he is a russian asset, he has committed treason. accusations that we know now are not true, and for which we never had any evidence to support that. he was accused of obstruction, it is now here we are, actually impeaching the president over petco peru, until we found out that eventful very well with focus groups, now its bribery. intellectually every witness before a set that i have no evidence of bribery, now it's extortion. the american people expect some sense of fairness. when nancy pelosi goes before she has seen a shred of evidence, that she announces that the president has betrayed the oval office, the american people, national security, without seeing any evidence. the american people say, what is fair about that? the question before us now, again, is extortion — the latest version of
7:29 pm
charges against the president. extortion sounds scary, pretty serious, had to look it up to see what it means. it means obtaining property and money but i fret to the victims property or loved one to stop i will read you a free quote from president zelensky and then ask you a few questions. first, there are topics, is the new ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve the image of ukraine, com plete improve the image of ukraine, complete an investigation of corruption which inhibited the interaction with the ukraine and the usa, does that sound like president zele ns ky usa, does that sound like president zelensky has been bribed or extorted in that comment? as i testified previously, i am in that comment? as i testified previously, lam not in that comment? as i testified previously, i am not a lawyer either, i do not want to characterise any legal terms. that is fine, i think most people will do that and say it doesn't allergies under any severe pressure. he made it clear in his own words, ukrainian president zelensky told reporters that he was not pressured by the us president. again, iwas
7:30 pm
that he was not pressured by the us president. again, i was not pressured. another time, there was no blackmail. i would ask you, do you think you felt like it was been extorted by the president based on these comments? i really think that is for the committee and congress to... is really for the american people. i agree. and there i like and the american people are not stupid, they can hear that and say, ido stupid, they can hear that and say, i do not think it was under duress, ido i do not think it was under duress, i do not think it was under duress, i do not think it was under duress, i do not think it was been extorted, ido i do not think it was been extorted, i do not think it was been extorted, i do not think it was been extorted, i do not think there was an exchange ofan i do not think there was an exchange of an upright. i would conclude with the slab stomach last observation, it is common for our national policy to withhold aid for various reasons, is that not true? that is true. it is that not true? that is true. it is frequent that we will withhold aid for various reasons. for example, president bush did it, he suspended military aid to 35 countries over their lack of support for the international criminal court, albert that helped his
7:31 pm
political standing back home. i do not remember anyone suggesting that we should impeach him for it. president trump did it last year with afghanistan over corruption, we did it with a pakistan over the same thing. the one suggested we impeach them over it. this is a common occurrence in international relations, hardly an impeachable offence. thank you, mr chairman. thank her being here today. there are things we can agree with colleagues on, i can agree with my colleague that we should turn over all the documents, all the documents should be turned over. mr ambassador, i all the documents should be turned over. mrambassador, ithink all the documents should be turned over. mr ambassador, i think you agree it would have helped your testimony, helps to under stand that the state department hasn't turned over a single document. phone
7:32 pm
conversation but millions more out there. and that we can agree but others we can disagree. particular as it relates to the whistle—blower. it distresses me because i begin to wonder about the motivations. in the final analysis, the way i look at this is, if we are investigating an arson, you all would indict the person who pulled the fire alarm. that person's job is done, person who pulled the fire alarm. that person'sjob is done, and we are seeing the smoke and we have seen the fire. whatever the whistle—blower dead doesn't change the president's actions, doesn't change the president's own words —— mike whistle—blower dead. it doesn't change mr mulvaney‘s own words, it doesn't. .. change mr mulvaney‘s own words, it doesn't... ——
7:33 pm
change mr mulvaney‘s own words, it doesn't. .. —— whistle—blower did. back to the documents and what you know, mr ambassador you seem to have your memoryjogged by documents. let's talk about may 23 and save this one helps you. senatorjohnson, in referencing the may 23 meeting in his letter says, i had no recollection of the president saying that during the meeting. it is entirely possible he did, because i do not work for the president. if made, the comment simply did not register with me. i also remember sondland staying behind to talk to the president as the rest of the delegation left the oval office. do you recall this later conversation and what you and the president discussed? i do. it was recapping a free for all conversation and i wanted to tie down exactly what we had agreed to do what we did. and
7:34 pm
subsequent, he talked of a day. did he go into any more detail about what that meant? no. just said talk to ready? it was a very short conversation. to reconfirm that the three of us would be working on the ukraine file. —— rudy giuliani. three of us would be working on the ukraine file. -- rudy giuliani. back to rudy giuliani in the seemingly contradictory passes here. you now recall the prerequisite mentioned in thejuly ten recall the prerequisite mentioned in the july ten meeting, recall the prerequisite mentioned in thejuly ten meeting, ray? when you are having this discussion, the first meeting in john are having this discussion, the first meeting injohn bolton's office, you referenced that there was condition? i believe someone else testified that i raise that and ididn't else testified that i raise that and i didn't dispute that testimony, that i said it is my understanding that i said it is my understanding that in order to get this visit done, there needs to be an announcement about... i don't know by said investigations are said
7:35 pm
specifically tarmac in your opening, you mention at the very same time that apparently there was a meeting with rudy giuliani, and the message you got was underscored, very concerned about what we've been told, according to rudy giuliani the sea potus meeting will not happen, which is not condition. it is not two which is not condition. it is not ton which is not condition. it is not two i think what you're saying is, this meeting i was talking about in my opening statement was apparently a meeting rudy giuliani was having at the same time in ukraine, unbeknownst to us. but he is saying something different, he is saying it is not going to happen. there is no notice and hear that it is a condition in any way. that was impassive volcker's point, this was an exchange with ambassador taylor and ambassador volcker. he was saying don't let other people talk
7:36 pm
for the us government. but if rudy giuliani is following the directions and he is saying what he has seen here, you are also following directions and you are saying it is condition, who is giving you the instruction to say what you are saying. that is why we thought it was problematic to work with rudy giuliani. but who did you work with to say the things you said? did you have conversations with the chief of staff or secretary pompeo to say what you're saying? are talking but in the july tent meetingwith ambassador volcker. at that point he was the one in touch with rudy giuliani, not me. but you had no direct conversations with mr mulvaney or secretary pompeo about this? only detects or e-mails i already reviewed. thank you, time is up. thank you ambassador salman for
7:37 pm
your service and i want to thank you for your opening statement and your hard—working staff. for your opening statement and your ha rd—working staff. you for your opening statement and your hard—working staff. you testify that you never received any direct confirmation or specific information as to why there was a hold on aid. in fact, you testified, quote, president trump told never told me —— never told me there are that it was pending on the investigations. you said, never heard those words from the president, correct? instead, you testified that in your september nine call with president trump, the president said, quote, no quid pro quo. i want nothing, i want president zelensky to do the right thing, to which he ran on. is that correct? yes that is correct. the fa ct correct? yes that is correct. the fact is the aid was given to ukraine without any announcement of new investigations. that is correct. and president trump did like me with
7:38 pm
president zelensky at the united nations in september? and it was no announcement of the for this meeting? correct. and there was no announcements after this meeting? sima correct. you'll make a new being clear about what adam schiff has asked you, you've corrected that to say that your understanding of the investigations are investigations under the 2016 investigations under the 2016 investigations and into perez ma. are you aware that during the obama administration, the us partner with the uk and... as part of the anti—corruption the uk and... as part of the anti—corru ption efforts? the uk and... as part of the anti—corruption efforts?” the uk and... as part of the anti-corruption efforts? i became aware of it today during the hearing. in fact, the obama administration state department was concerned about the potential appearance of conflict of interest with hunter biden serving on the boards, as they prepared this as they were preparing ambassador...
7:39 pm
she testified when i answer that question both in the open hearing and they closed their position. i have asked most of our witnesses this and every witness i have asked has said yes, and i want to ask you this today... do you believe that hunter biden having a position on the board of perez ma has a potential conflict of interest.” don't know enough. so you disagree with every other witness? clearly it is an appearance of the conflict—of—interest. this is something every witness is answered yes to, and yet we are not allowed to call hunter biden to answer questions in front of this committee. —— burisma. thank you for
7:40 pm
your truthful testimony today and i yield back. ambassador at sondland, you were told by the present and others to not show up. you showed up, ithink others to not show up. you showed up, i think that says a lot about you, andl up, i think that says a lot about you, and i think history will look kindly on you doing that. but there are consequences to that. a couple of hours ago president trump was asked about you and he said, i don't know him well, i have not spoken to him much, this is not a man i know well. is that true? it really depends on what you mean by know well. we are not close friends, no. we have a professional, cordial working relationship. and are not working relationship. and are not working relationship. and are not working relationship in ocr? yes. and he has spoken to you often? two
7:41 pm
what is often? you said 20 times. after the inauguration, the president makes you ambassador to the european union, eventually the ambassador to ukraine is removed and as you told us in your deposition, you become a central figure as it relates to ukraine. that is a pretty big responsibility.” relates to ukraine. that is a pretty big responsibility. i don't know that i said i was a central figure, i was one of several people who were tasked to work on the ukraine file. would you ever, in that big responsibility, take any actions that were not authorised by president trump? where you ever hold into the leadership of the state department for any actions you had taken around your work on ukraine? no. as to rudy giuliani, on may 2030
7:42 pm
president told you, talk to rudy giuliani. he talked him a couple of times as you told us, september top to the present a couple times. that the president ever tell you to stop talking to rudy giuliani? did he ever say don't any longer talk to him? no. on ukraine you said that you are playing the hand you're dealt. president trump was the dealer, wasn't he? president trump was what? the dealer. in your metaphor, you plainly hand you're dealt,... i will re-characterise your question by saying we follow the direction of the president because that was the only pathway to working with ukraine. on page four of your testimony you said, given what we know, given what we knew at the time, we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong. and you would angry now, ambassador, knowing what you know now, what she didn't
7:43 pm
know at the time, there are some things around ukraine that were wrong? i agree. so let's take out any leveraging of security assistance over the ukrainians any white house visit. would you agree that it white house visit. would you agree thatitis white house visit. would you agree that it is wrong to the president of the united states to ask the leader ofa the united states to ask the leader of a foreign government to investigate the president of the united states's political opponent? yes. would you agree that in addition to making the request for an investigation, leveraging a visit at the white house, that a foreign government desperately needs is also wrong? in what respect? imaging at the white house, if someone really needs want to show their legitimacy to the people, that leveraging that meeting and asking for an investigation would be wrong? to be candid, every new meeting at the white house has conditions placed on it. i have never worked at a meeting at the way as it is it a snappy host of conditions. we if one was to investigate possible opponent, that
7:44 pm
would be wrong? a political opponent, yes. making announcements perse, opponent, yes. making announcements per se, no. two us —— if you asked a foreign leader, and leveraged in the hypothetical, you would agree the sarong? yes, iwould. in the hypothetical. before they he worked asa hypothetical. before they he worked as a businessman and i imagine you worked on a lot of deals? you work for a guy now who wrote a book called art of the deal, is that right? i do. state department employees have told us they don't wa nt employees have told us they don't want to make legal definitions about what occurred around the white house meeting being leveraged against the investigations, but you clearly call ita quid investigations, but you clearly call it a quid pro quo, is that right?” did. one final hypothetical, if someone walks through those two doors waiting rain boots, a raincoat and holding an umbrella with
7:45 pm
raindrops falling off of them, do you have to see outside that it is raining to presume or conclude that it might be raining outside?” understand your hypothetical. my my colleague from california basically implied that you have been supportive of president trump is my campaign. having a hard time hearing you. my colleagues in california indicated that you are supported at the president's campaign, is that correct? i actually donated to the inaugural committee in order to secure tickets. so let me ask this question, did you participate in or overhear any conversations about the potential information collected by ukraine on the biden's... ukrainians
7:46 pm
on the bidens would be used for political gain? set that i personally hear that, no. political gain? set that i personally hearthat, no. did political gain? set that i personally hear that, no. did you participate in any conversation when this was discussed? not that i recall, no. on your statement on page five, you said rudy giuliani's request for a quid pro quo to arrange a white house visit for president zelinsky, you recounted your conversation with president trump where he said i want nothing and no quid pro quo. how do you reconcile these two as they must? they are hard to reconcile. we were working along rudy giuliani's direction for a period of time. we still didn't have a white house meeting. it was now held up. there we re lots of meeting. it was now held up. there were lots of reasons being given by various people as to why those where moving forward. and i finally got exasperated by receiving ambassador
7:47 pm
taylor's latest tx and ijust picked up taylor's latest tx and ijust picked up the phone, i got through to the president and i said what do you want? p are you aware of any specific conversations that rudy giuliani had with the president between your may 23 conversation and september 11 2019?” between your may 23 conversation and september 11 2019? i don't recall if rudy giuliani, when i was directly talking to him, either through a co nfe re nce talking to him, either through a conference call or on a direct call, whether he quoted from the president are saidi whether he quoted from the president are said ijust talked to the president. most of the communications, as i said, went to ambassador volker originally. you said rudy giuliani had been commuting with ukrainians without our knowledge. i'm assuming that you, volker and taylor bill —— which
7:48 pm
achilles was he talking to? set i was referring to this text i received from ambassador volker, where rudy giuliani was telling the ukrainian something that frustrated ambassador volker. do you think the prosecutor has any gravitas within the zelinsky regime? , i'd don't we know rudy giuliani has met on the fringes of meetings and i think it was spain. do you know any other ukrainian official within the zelinsky regime that mayor giuliani was meeting with? i don't know who he was meeting with. had you had any conversations with ukrainian officials within the zelenksy regime
7:49 pm
who said, ijust put up the phone with rudy giuliani, what is he talking about? would that be normal? with all your interactions with heads of states, if there is some element of the us government they are spoken to, isn't it usually a step that they commend to talk to the ambassador and try and clarify what that statement was? is that a true characterisation?” what that statement was? is that a true characterisation? i think that isa true characterisation? i think that is a reasonable possibility. things we re is a reasonable possibility. things were all kinds of different ways these days. when you met with president zelenksy after the july 20 for phone call, see met him onjuly 26, that the investigations ofjoe biden come up in that meeting.” don't remember him coming up. was any frustration expressed ? don't remember him coming up. was any frustration expressed? as i testified, everyone said it was a good call. in your opinion, in your interactions with president zelenksy, sa straight shooter or a liar? he impressed me greatly and
7:50 pm
thatis liar? he impressed me greatly and that is why i wanted to get he and president trump together as soon as possible. when he makes express statements, you tend to believe them? with my limited interaction with them, he very honourable. two thank you, mr ambassador. good afternoon, ambassador. others close to president trump have made it clear that investigations were in fa ct clear that investigations were in fact part clear that investigations were in fa ct pa rt of clear that investigations were in fact part of the conditions for us assistance to ukraine, including rudy giuliani and mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. as you press co nfe re nce acting chief of staff. as you press conference on october 17, mick mulvaney discussed his belief that it is entirely appropriate to politicise us foreign policy. ambassador, how often did you speak or meet with mr mulvaney? again, based on my lack of records, i'm going by a bad memory.
7:51 pm
based on my lack of records, i'm going bya bad memory. i based on my lack of records, i'm going by a bad memory. i only think i had one formal meeting with mr mulvaney and it had nothing to do with ukraine, it has to do with a completely unrelated matter. did you have a chance to speak with him about your efforts and you can? sci mag i think most about medication we re mag i think most about medication were through the stream of e—mails which others were. i may have seen him at the white house occasionally and kept in touch, but we didn't have a back—and—forth. and kept in touch, but we didn't have a back-and-forth. was at your thought that he, mr mulvaney, had a direct line to mr trump? of course. let us look at what massimo benny said during the october 17 press conference. —— mr mole benny said. those where the driving factors. he also mentioned to me in passing the corruption related to the dnc server, absolutely, no question about that. that's why we held up
7:52 pm
the money. the demand for an investigation into the democrats as pa rt of investigation into the democrats as part of the reason he was told to withhold funding to ukraine. they look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about. that is absolutely proven. she said that president trump, in that clip, had an interest in the investigations, did he not? apparently, yes. we mackie is the chief of staff, he is someone that sees a president has a conversation every single day. i would expect he has a direct line to the president. when did you first learn from mulvaney that the investigations were holding up the security system is? i don't know but i heard it from all vna. ok.
7:53 pm
ambassador sondland, i know that you're not a career foreign service officer, is that your understanding that the us government conditioned security assistance in an investigation into a political rival all the time? i've already testified ididn't all the time? i've already testified i didn't think that would be proper. letters also see what bill bailey had to say about that at the same press conference. “— had to say about that at the same press conference. —— mulvaney had to say about that. those were the driving factors, and he also mentioned me and passed at the corruption losing to the dnc server, absolutely, no question about that. that is that is why we held the money. i'lljust go ahead and read it for you. held the money. i'lljust go ahead and read it foryou. i'll held the money. i'lljust go ahead and read it for you. i'll read it. he says, and i have news for
7:54 pm
everybody, get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. knowing what you know now about what was intended with ukraine, do you agree with mulvaney that there has got to be political influence on foreign policy, or that we should alljust get over it and allow a president now or later to investigate a political rival and ask a foreign government to do that?” political rival and ask a foreign government to do that? i think there isa government to do that? i think there is a big difference between political influence and investigating arrival, because politics enters into everything relating to foreign policy. but you disagree that. you agree that the president should not be allowed to ask for the investigation of a political rival? in the context of ukraine, i believe that the president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo. we have been listening to
7:55 pm
testimony from ambassadors sondland, the ambassador to the eu testifying in the impeachment hearing. strengthening the democrats case when it comes to the impeachment, and this question of quid pro quo. basically giving a detailed account of what that looked like. he also widened the net, implicating members of the trump administration, including the secretary of state, also mulvaney and also the vice president mike pence, saying he detailed some of his concerns to the vice president. some very difficult questions for the white house to a nswer after questions for the white house to answer after this. a planned... it is an important point that the republicans are hanging their hats on today, that under cross—examination, he had never had
7:56 pm
that explicit conversation with the president that the aid was tied to the investigations. good night. it has been a cloudy day to day per many areas of the uk, particular across western areas. the weather was largely dry in the structure hills, you can see we did have a fair layer of cloud. that cloud and the rain we had across western areas, all tied in with an area of low pressure that has been spinning to the west of the uk now for the last couple of days or so. the reason it has stuck there is because to our east we have got this enormous area of high pressure covering a good chunk of russia, stopping those laws removing through. over 99, we are going to keep those rather cloudy conditions. outbreaks of rain will tend to become confined to cornrow, really as we go on the night. there will be as we go on the night. there will be a few showers through the night
7:57 pm
nation out of scotland. for most it isa nation out of scotland. for most it is a cloudy night, temperatures 3-6dc. is a cloudy night, temperatures 3—6dc. potentially touch of prosper we see any lengthy clear breaks. protect labour notice because of a northern scotland. tomorrow, another fairly cloudy day coming up. the ones backing to a south—easterly direction. that should tend to keep most of the rain away from northern ireland, but it will bring in some killer area, so much tell your day. eastern scotland, patches of low cloud and a little drizzle. the most, cloudy, that could be a few brighter spells. friday, low pressure is still with us. we could see an area of rain development across northern scotland. the weather hasn't been to wet here recently, so that is not cause for concern, however, it we see some heavy rain working into south—west england, that could potentially cause a few issues later on in the day. for many, another... star began looks like this. low pressure moves and of the atlantic, this one looks
7:58 pm
like it is going to be bringing a zone of heavy rain with it. again, some surface water flooding issues given that the ground is saturated. the rinsing within the far of scotland, temperatures rising a little bit. highs up to 10 degrees across southern parts of england and wales. feeling a little bit milder here. the second tab at the weekend, very uncertain. an area of low pressure a cross very uncertain. an area of low pressure across england and wales bringing heavy rain. others bring an area we ca reen bringing heavy rain. others bring an area we careen across scotland and northern ireland. a lot of uncertainty, stay tuned, the progress could change over the next few days for sunday. —— the forecast could change.
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
this is bbc news. the headlines at 8pm. an annoucement from buckingham palace this evening, that prince andrew is stepping back from public duties for the forseeable future. it follows an explosive interview with the bbc — in which he was widely criticised for a lack of remorse over his friendship with the convicted sex offender, jeffrey epstein. borisjohnson boris johnson pleasers borisjohnson pleasers major changes in the amount we all pay for national insurance. i mean low tax for people, for working people. we're going to be cutting national insurance up to 12,000. the liberal democrats launch their election manifesto — promising to stop brexit in order to generate a £50 billion pound

19 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on